I have yet to weigh in on the media-generated controversy about Rush Limbaugh’s speech last week to CPAC. It seems the controversy lies in the power and effectiveness of this conservative discourse. Before commenting, I wanted to first read to discover (if I could) the same anger, mockery, bullying and contempt that CNN’s Bill Schneider found in the address.
Yeah, there was some mockery there and even a few expressions of contempt, but there was no anger. Indeed, whenever I listen to Rush or read his stuff (as is more likely the case nowadays), I don’t find much anger in his words, a lot of humor, a good deal of mockery, but anger, no, not much.
It seems that his critics in the media are eager to portray him to fit their narrative of outspoken of conservatives as uneducated, unrestrained rubes. He thus becomes a better target for their scorn as well, to borrow a a few works from Schneider, their mockery and contempt.
After watching part of it and reading the whole thing, I pretty much share Hugh’s assessment, disagreeing only about its seminal nature.
What has struck me the most about the speech is not just its quality, but the media’s reaction. Following the Administration’s playbook, they have been relentless in their attacks, seeking to shift the story from Rush’s uplifting message to his controversial nature. Despite Rush’s succinct articulation of conservative principles, it did include a handful of over-the-top flourishes that a more judicious orator would have excluded.
But, if Rush were more judicious, he would be less entertaining.
Larry King, normally respectful of his guests no matter what their political views, was eager to pile on. He hosted a panel to discuss the speech and since topic was not Limbaugh in general, but his influence on the GOP, you’d think he might limit that panel to Republicans. But no, he included left-wing blogress and professional celebrity Arianna Huffington in the discussion as well as Stephanie Miller, a progressive (AKA far left) talk radio show hostess.
As I watched them, while sweating out the frustrations of the day on the stairmaster at my gym, I was stunned to hear Huffington drone on and on about how Republicans rewrite history (or maybe it was Miller, couldn’t tell because I was reading the closed captioning, unable to hear the dialogue which I could more readily follow).
And then, it Huffington blamed the current state of our economy on Bush’s deregulation. I just wish somebody would ask any Democrat or other critic of the past president to specify the particular programs Republicans deregulated in the past eight years. They repeat the mantra of Republican deregulation over and over again, as if the repetition guarantees its veracity, yet it has little basis in reality.
Just as do their descriptions of Rush Limbaugh as angry.
It would be really nice if some responsible journalist dared ask their critics to be more specific in their criticisms of conservatives. It seems instead they would rather define so they can more readily demean us.
I didnt see that, but he was practically frothing at the mouth over Rush while interviewing Bobby Jindal.
And there you have it. A lie oft repeated becomes truth. Democrats and the media know this. Republicans seem content to let them. The cause of the recession has already been (falsely) defined in the public’s mind as Republicans. Our presidential candidate briefly entertained the idea of setting the record straight during the campaign, but apparently decided it was more important to appear bipartisan. The rest of the party was too busy worrying about their own personal fortunes to bother correcting the record on the biggest financial crisis since at least Jimmy Carter.
I briefly visited DailyKos today, and saw a post about FOX supposedly sweeping Rush under the Rug. Complete with graph showing the number of mentions of the Rush “scandal” by each cable network. Their set up…
Perhaps, but considering what a non-story this is, I’d say the converse is more apt.
How do you know when the MSM think something is bad for Republicans?
They talk about little else.
I wish I had the time and tenacity to read these blogs over and count the “no, no, people just misunderstood our message” excuses. How many times can you keep saying this?
If not rampant greed, brought about in large part by de-regulation during the Bush years, then what exactly was the cause of the massive economic meltdown in this country?
As far as Rush not being angry, you’ve gotta be kidding – every time I see / hear him, he always seems to be on a “oh whoa is me as a downtrodden white-man” tirade. It’s no wonder Democrats are gleeful in their response to him – he’s a perfect example of the over-excesses and “do as I say, not as I do” attitudes from the Republicans which the masses have finally caught on to in recent years. Also, running a radio show is a lot different than actually working in government – on his show with his commentaries, he has absolute rule and dissent sure isn’t tolerated at any level. Not the reflection of a democracy there.
I have a clear memory of Rush’s response to Hillary Clinton’s statement that she wasn’t going to run for president in 2004. He was having a huge fit on the radio, literally screaming about what a liar she was. Funny thing is, he kept screaming louder and louder because it seems no one was listening to him that as he didn’t get any call-ins commenting on this topic.
I, for one, am tired of all the hifalutin’ mumbo jumbo and, as I like to say, superfluous flummery. I took three courses in Public Speaking in college and hated every minute of it. Hated it worse than Math. Why? Because that’s not who I am. I’d a told Prof. Higgins where he could shove it.
I want somebody who can get to the point and speak plainly. Instead of trying to impress everybody in the room with how many words you think you know, just tell them what you want to say. Some might say I’m naive or ignorant for thinking that way, but unlike them, I don’t piss myself worrying about what other people think.
Better yet, what were the liberals doing to stop/fix it? As the WSJ said, Chairman Obama’s quickly running out of folks to blame.
Practically the same a-holes in the MSM who savage Rush to distract from Chairman Obama spending trillions on new deck chairs for the Titanic.
Hey Kevin, thanks for proving you’ve never listened to a single second of Rush’s show. I listen daily and have no idea WTF you are talking about.
Actually, Rush routinely lets liberals on his show who disagree. He let’s them make asses out of themselves, regurgitating their prepared bumper sticker lying points and then he has the audacity to explain to them how they’re wrong. Same with Hannity.
Conversly, we used to have Lionel on the radio here. There was one caller from Florida whom he never let speak because he kept interrupting with “Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!”. Then he got agitated he hung up on the caller and then went on a 3 minute tirade about how Floridians are “Ignorant, inbred hicks who can’t figure out how to use a voting machine”. Nevermind that all of us, except the liberal controlled Palm Beach County had no problems.
I e-mailed the station wondering why some clown could smear the whole state and still keep his show on. I got a reply tap dancing about “Diversity of opinion” or some such. Within a week or so, his show was gone.
Care to explain to me the “reflection of democracy” is there?
Listened to Ed Schultz one night. He had a caller who wouldn’t “shut up” when he demanded it. The caller paused to let Ed speak, once Ed started speaking over him. Ed called him a “piece of crap” and hung up on him.
Can you tell me where the “reflection of democracy is displayed there?
I would love for you to explain it to me.
Filtered again.
Oh, and Kevin, please provide a link to Rush’s website where you get the “oh whoa is me as a downtrodden white-man†from. Also, please inlude links to where he was screaming that Hillary was a liar and that nobody was calling the show.
While you’re at it, I’ll provide links to Operation Chaos.
Whenever you’re ready.
It’s fairly obvious that Kevin has never listened to Rush Limbaugh, as everything he says in the opposite of truth, especially “dissent sure isn’t tolerated at any level.” As Rush says, “I put those who disagree at the head of the line” of callers. He tries to reason with those who disagree, is unfailingly polilte, and talks to them longer than he does to callers who agree. In fact, it is the Leftist callers who quickly become angry and personally attack Rush, rather than attempt a reasoned discussion.
Rush has often commented that his parents wouldn’t believe how successful he has become, AND that he wishes all Americans could be as successful as he is–and he means it. It’s all about “what a great country America is!”–and not in the sense that Williams Ayers said it when he was gloating about his getting away with all his terrorist activities because of a technicality.
Ah well, luckily Rush doesn’t need ME to defend him.
I notice, too, that Kevin failed to mention WHICH specific deregulation led to this problem. Is he one of those who skims–but doesn’t really read–a column, article or blog post, then just chooses from the list of Leftist talking points and tries to post them in a way that no one will notice his actual lack of thought?
Reading Rush’s transcript is like reading the box score of a baseball game
You get to see what happened but you miss the action.
If you listened to his moaning and groaning you might fully understand what a whackjob he has become (or always was.)
Its tragic that he is the pope of the second largest political party in America.
Reading Obama’s transcript is like reading the box score of a baseball game
You get to see what happened but you miss the action.
If you listened to his moaning and groaning you might fully understand what a whackjob he has become (or always was.)
Its tragic that he is the Messiah of the most corrupt political party in America.
There, much better.
Great! Let’s do some more madlibs:
“Indeed, whenever I listen to Al Franken or read his stuff (as is more likely the case nowadays), I don’t find much anger in his words, a lot of humor, a good deal of seriousness, but anger, no, not much.”
better indeed
Left-liberals are on the road to ruin, as we speak. Their destruction of the nation’s wealth is unprecedented, and only insane lies can justify it. They *must* discredit and destroy (if possible) the voices that contradict them – the voices that explain what the left-liberals are up to.
Hence the long series of myths they’ve been creating:
– Palin is a white-trash idiot. (In fact, she is a truthful and near-brilliant conservative voice from America’s working class.)
– Jindal is an immigrant idiot who didn’t present any alternative to Obama’s plans. (In fact, he did. And is brilliant.)
– Limbaugh is a hater. (No, he isn’t. He’s just very pompous. And good at skewering lefties.)
– “BUSH DEREGULATED!!!(tm)” (No, he didn’t. Bush *increased* financial and other regulations.)
– “BUSH LIED!!!(tm)” (No, he didn’t.)
– “CHENEY IS EVIL!!!!(tm)” (No, he isn’t. Cheney was/is very wrong about budge deficits and the economy, but left-liberals don’t want to talk about that part, since their economic policy is to ruin the economy by doubling and re-doubling those deficits.)
– Scott Beauchamp, “THE MILITARY IS PSYCHO!!!(tm)”, “AMERICA TORTURES!!!(tm)”, and all the rest of it.
Of course, in the end, reality always wins. Either the left-liberals will stay in power and America will be progressively ground down into an impoverished country with high inflation and corruption – a banana republic – or America will throw out the lefties, as that almost (or very nearly) happens. Whichever the rest of America wants.
Dan, I can appreciate that you don’t see RushBlow as being an angry white guy… ala the stereotype from some on the farLeft. If RushBlow does get a little hot under collar –and, yeah, he does on air unless one thinks it’s all an entertaining act for the red meat crowd– he does a great job pandering that faux-anger to his fan base… and it’s made him incredibly wealthy.
Maybe it’s not anger? Sort of like believing Nixon when he said he didn’t get angry at the WH press because you don’t get “angry at those you don’t respect”. Not anger? Maybe it’s frustration with a healthy dose of cynicism wrapped up in an American flag?
OK, let’s say it’s frustration at the system and venting his frustration as a scorn for the unfulfilled promise of America or some other lofty goal like defending capitalism. But they guy uses every radio talk show ploy in the book –and some that are intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
One intellectually dishonest tactic that he uses effectively (like his predecessor Dr Laura) is to put up a caller who is clearly flawed, lambast them while listeners seemingly cheer on the humiliation being handed out by the Great One and then talking dismissively about the caller’s opinions after the Great One’s dressing down like some locker room jocks high-fiving their win over a wheel-chair basketball team. And it’s all for his audience, his loyal listeners, his worshipful fan base. Is that helping advance civil debate in our society? Nawh, but no one tunes in to RushBlow for that, do they?
Michael Steele got it right. Rush is an entertainer. He’s a radio talk show political pundit. He has an AM radio talk show audience because his listeners hear their voice in his commentaries. They can cheer when he bitch-slaps some “pinko, commie, Marxist neo-Stalinist libturd” on the air. Just like many of those same listeners would cheer when Dr Laura would tell the 3x teen Mom begrudging the burden of raising kids –“then learn to keep your knees together, slut”. We’ve been told that TV is a vast cultural wasteland… we’ll it’s got nothing on AM talk radio. He’s not a leader, he’s an echo of his fan base’s more base instincts and opinions.
I didn’t think Michael Steele, despite what CNN and HeadlineNews and HuffPo want us to think, apologized. I thought it was a non-apology of the sort “if I hurt his feelings, then I am sorry but he needs to get a thicker skin”. Steele should have stood more firmly by his central point. RushBlow isn’t the GOP voice; the Dems have that wrong. Steele is. RushBlow can self-identify as a strong voice of the conservative movement –which is great. He may voice some of the opinions that soc-cons inside and mostly outside the GOP hold as self-evident truths, but the guy is first, last and only an entertainer. Not a journalist. Not an informed political analyst ala Michael Barone or others. Not a great thinker like Bill Buckley or Russell Kirk. Not even a practioner and conservative warrior like Reagan or Goldwater.
He’s an entertainer that has a fan base every bit as loyal as those who adore U2, Bear Grylls (woof) or A.Huffington (ugh).
To consider him anything more is to misjudge the fickle nature of celebrity and the power of real leadership to transcend words, ideas and action.
What marvelous spin! But the plain-English translation would be simply: Limbaugh is willing to talk to the other side. Or, as polly put it, Limbaugh:
P.S. To make a full disclosure, I don’t care for Limbaugh all that much. I find him pompous. I also that the things he describes/lambasts (usually rightly) tend to make my blood pressure go up. I tune in about 15 minutes… per week. Which isn’t much. But I just want to say, my 15 minutes a week stretches back 3-4 years and in all that time, I have not yet (or not ever) heard Limbaugh “lambast” a liberal caller or be anything but polite to them.
Wow, ILC, either you’ve fallen into the ditch of dittoheaded adoring fanland or you haven’t listented to RushBlow in a while.
“Limbaugh is willing to talk to the other side” is like saying Michael Jackson’s crime is just loving kids too much or Obama is nuturing bipartisanship in DC these days.
All three would be gross mis-statements of reality. RushBlow is after ratings, ILC; it’s what drives his fortune and fame and ego. Beating up on that proverbial wheelchair basketball team is what sells on his program to his adoring fan base of dittoheads. I’m not surprised you’d call the truth “spin”.
Two items immediately come to mind:
1. If the Dhimmicrats insist on making Limbaugh the target for the GOP, they are going to be making a big mistake. Already, politico.com has announced that a “senior WH official” (probably Rahm Emanuel) is coordinating the DNC attacks on Limbaugh from the Oval Office. Didn’t the Dhims learn from Joe the Plumber? If you attack a private citizen, other private citizens will get upset. And since Rush is not an official member of the GOP, it is a wholly misguided attack.
2. Ann Coulter also gave a good over-the-top speech at CPAC. Where is THAT coverage from the MSM? And she even went beyond Limbaugh’s oratory!
Regards,
Peter H.
PS> my link in comment #9 didn’t show up. It was Bear Grylls, shirtless.
http://www.bear-grylls.net/bear-grylls-shirtless.htm
Hey, this is supposedly a gay site, right?
Statist economic interventionism that distorted markets and set up perverse and dangerous financial incentives for lenders and for unqualified borrowers, beginning with Clinton and the CRA.
I agree with MM on this one. Rush is an entertainer. That’s all. Michael Steele is the head of the RNC, not Rush Limbaugh. People here don’t take the political views of liberal entertainers seriously. Same goes with Rush. I don’t listen to talk radio. Oldies music (’60s through ’80s) is my pleasure.
MM, about that link: what a disappointment! I was expecting some body hair with a link that had “bear” in it. Woof? Not. Gimme bears!
Personal attack… and nothing real to back up what it asserts about Limbaugh. Yup, MM, your typical style when challenged. Functionally, it means you can’t refute my point; you haven’t got anything. Thanks!
As a life long Republican, I find myself at a cross roads: remain Republican or concentrate on being a conservative who believes in capitalism while letting the Republican Party flounder.
Rush is a conservative and a capitalist. He is not a Republican, let alone a leader of the Republican Party.
I take great exception to this observation about his address to Cpac:
Rush is a powerhouse wordsmith who can carry the theme of conservatism better than anyone else. He is self employed. He is not running for anything or from anything. He measures his success in daily listenership, advertising rates and market reach. His EIB (Excellence In Broadcasting) standard not only has created modern talk radio, but has set the standard by which his his success is measured.
If Rush is overtaken by a competing voice, the time will have arrived to question his “over-the-top flourishes” caused his decline.
I am at sea trying to imagine what value being amore “judicious orator” would bring to Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh has never sullied the principles of conservatism or the free market system. As the king of the hill which he both created and occupies, where does he need to be more “judicious”?
Carville and Begala “discovered” that young, liberal voters hate Rush. They have been at work painting him as the “leader” of the Republican Party. Since they can’t shut him up, they want Steele, McCain, McConnell, Kristol, Barnes, other Republican conservative dwarves to run from him.
Those who run away from Rush are in trouble with their own conservative values and belief in the free market system.
thelittleletterpeople attack Rush on his bulky body, his past drug addiction, the Godfather outfit he wore to Cpac, calling for the Messiah to fail, ripping man made global warming for the scam it is, etc. Rush doesn’t “give back as good as he gets.” Rush never forgets and when he “gives it back” he buries the opposition.
Rush owes nothing to anyone. Short of assassinating him, his enemies have to find a way speaking truth to power and overwhelming his message and talent.
Jimbo, maybe you listen to Limbaugh more than I do. Do you hear him “lambast” his liberal callers? What I’ve heard has usually been them doing it to him.
Rush is a teacher, covering Conservatism 101 for the masses. Good teachers (of the masses) are also entertainers. Big whoop.
Oh, I don’t know about that. I think our “lowercase clan” takes the views of Randi Rhodes and Al Franken pretty seriously.
I used to be all about les stroud
but after that Bear Grylls link, I might have to give that show another chance.
I was impressed by the parts of Rush’s speech I read. His description of what conservatives are and believe was excellent fiction. If only such a conservative actually existed.
“He’s not a leader, he’s an echo of his fan base’s more base instincts and opinions.”
That’s what disturbs me the most, he’s meaningless, a walking ego who represents not only the arrogant like AE, but the nasty element that is against anyone who doesn’t think like they do. If he truly tried to reason with his callers no one would listen.
“2. Ann Coulter also gave a good over-the-top speech at CPAC. Where is THAT coverage from the MSM? And she even went beyond Limbaugh’s oratory!”
Because anyone who functions even slightly above barbarian knows that she is a piece of human s*it and her words are not worth responding to. The fact that she has an audience is a sign that civilization is reaching it’s final days in this country.
Jimbo whispers:
Katie Couric is just a news reader. Chris Matthews is just a pundit. Dan Rather was just a reporter of selected facts and would be facts if they were true. Stepandwafflemess is just a former Democrat Presidential press flack and Sunday interview host.
It would be wonderfully revealing to learn from Jimbo and Michigan Matt where they get the core information to position themselves moderately in the calm of neither this nor that. Does it come from listening to Oldies music and dancing with a broom on the kitchen table?
Jimbo, you can woof a hairless bear… honest. It works.
ILC, it’s not a personal attack even tho’ you seem to want it to be so… I didn’t have the benefit of your preceeding comments about not listening to RushBlow more than 15 minutes or so each week. You’re not a dittohead and you haven’t fallen in a ditch but I can’t see how, even limiting yourself to 15 min/wk, you haven’t heard the Great One railing against some caller who takes issue with the usual RushBlow line.
It’s a central part of his game. He bitchslaps the underachieving liberal caller –usually beginning with an immediate interruption of anything said by the caller and claiming “no, no, no, I didn’t say that” when, in truth, it’s usually a fair reduction by the caller of RushBlow’s normal line of thought.
Then it’s on to taking whatever the caller says, ignoring the salient points and reducing whatever they said to an utterly indefensible point and spitting it back at the caller… all with a false tone of sincerity and politeness usually reserved for airline stewards saying “buh-bye” to passengers on the way to the jetway. Kind of reminds me of some, here.
He does it over and over in a week. It’s his schtick. And the listeners love it because THEY’D like nothing more than to be able to debate, bitchslap and put away liberal callers like the Great One. And RushBlow knows it because you can hear it in RushBlow’s voice when his production staff is queuing up one of those kind of callers… “Oh, this is rich, we’ve got a caller that wants to defend the Stimulus Bill”.
I’ll give RushBlow credit for being entertaining. He’s a great capitalist. He’s a great reflection (I think echo) of the voice of modern, man-in-the-street conservatism. He’s great on whipping up people on the anti-tax, anti-spend, big govt rants.
But he’s an entertainer, first and foremost. You sort of dismiss that distinction.
It’s all about the ratings. And if his recent delusional statements connected to the Michael Steele comments are any indicator, he needs a rest. He recently noted that 20-22m people listen to him daily. Which was true in 2003 but in 2009, with a 62% disapproval rating by average Americans, Rush’s listenership is down to about 13m daily… if we can trust the ratings services.
And like the character Norma Desmond could tell him, celebrity fades for all at some point, dearie.
Except for Bear Grylls. Woof.
Kevin, we say you’re misunderstanding us because you are.
Did you understand what Rush meant when he said he wanted Obama to fail? He said he wanted him to fail to implement his statist policies.
As to deregulation, um, did you read my post? Have you read this blog? First, answer my question, specify the deregulation. Second, familiarize yourself with the arguments made by conservatives (and even a good number by less ideological commentators and economists) about government intervention in the mortgage market. And note our points about how then-President Bush and Congressional Republicans tried to reform (read: regulate) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). Democrats thwarted that.
But, you’d know these things if you read our blog, instead of picking and choosing the comments that you dislike the most or which are at odds with what you’re reading on left-wing blogs.
Well, Kevin, I’m sure I listen to Rush more than you and while I’ve heard him angry on occasion, I’ve also heard him bellow in an ever louder voice for dramatic effect.
So, if you have examples of his anger, why not provide actual links to his language. And while you’re at it, please provide a few links to examples of Bush Administration deregulation. K?
Gillie, for all your insults, could you just supply a link to buttress your point?
An a different Dave, believe me such conservatives exist.
helio, LOL. I’ve never heard of GeorgeS being called “Stepandwafflemess”; that’s very funny but true.
I don’t get my cues from AM radio nor from listening to GoldenOldies -although as a Michigander, I am partial to MoTown and, sorry about this, acoustic jazz.
My cues come from reading TNR, Weekly Standard, Economist, WSJ, NR, DetNews (a great conservative paper), regional and natl academic polisci journals, AmSpectator and Campaigns&Elections. And thinking on my own — a trait dittoheads resist at any price… theirs isn’t a cerebral function, it’s a visceral thing.
I listen to Rush fairly regularly and I find him very smart, very funny, and very conservative. What his critics reveal is his effectiveness, especially in his understanding and ability to explain their motivations. So much of liberalism defies common sense and must be accomplished via stealth. Rush, as an antidote to the media while a part of it, brings their agenda and premises to the light of day. Does he appeal to a certain paranoid segment of the conservative base? Of course he does, but that doesn’t mean he engages in appeal. Listeners will hear anything they wish to hear despite what is actually being said, whether Bubba Cherry-Pickens or Michigan-Matt — folk who apparently have quite a bit in common.
Dan, I have to get going but you make an important point: “…while I’ve heard him angry on occasion, I’ve also heard him bellow in an ever louder voice for dramatic effect.”
True. And I’m remembering now hearing JesseJackson or AlSharpton ramp up the dramatic voice when they try to juice-up the crowd… but like Rush, Jesse/Al still seem to be angry, mad, outraged in playing that schtick. My oldest son, when he was 7, once saw Jesse on the news ramping up on some injustice and when he was done, my son asked “Why’s that man so mad, Dad?”
I didn’t think to say, “He’s not mad; he’s just using that voice for dramatic effect.” I still think Rush’s blood pressure jumps up a few notches through most of his show… he does have short fuse. Is it all fake for dramatic effect? For entertaining his listeners? Nawh, I think it’s pretty genuine on his part. Is it passion, not drama? Hmmm.
BTW, I agree with you on the dereg faux-argument by Dems. It equals their Rush-as-GOP-leader fakery.
#23 – I would expect such misogynistic drivel from someone who is afraid of an empowered, conservative woman (read: Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Elizabeth Dole etc).
You’ve just proven my point about libtards and personal attacks.
As for the shirtless guy – not bad, but I like more muscles. Just my personal preference. 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
Here’s a better picture of Grylls. As for his muscles, the one that really matters isn’t much, but then he looks cold.
Bottom line here is pretty simple:
Limbaugh (just like Coulter) draws the ire of the Left because he’s so effective.
What’s curious is that he’s drawn the ire of the establishment of the Republican party. After eight years of government expansion, and his lack of support for the left-of-center (of the Republican party, that is) GOP nominee, perhaps Steele is feeling as intimidated by Rush as the Left has always been?
As petty as the White House looks for directly attacking him, I wonder if Steele recognizes the same mistake he’s made.
Well, thank you for admitting that, MM. That’s something.
I just listened to Limbaugh as I drove in. He had a liberal caller on the line. The liberal accused him of supporting President Bush 100% on everything. Which is quite false (even I know that). Limbaugh rattled off the many ways in which he has criticized Bush over the years. Limbaugh ended by telling the caller, correctly, something like “Sir, you need to expand your view of who I am.”
In other words: Limbaugh speaks forcefully. Limbaugh sharply answers his opponents’ questions and bad premises. He tells opponents they’re wrong. BUT – He never abuses them. He never calls them names. He wasn’t rude to this caller; never attacked his character.
Where am I going with all this?
(1) I mean to provide an example of buttressing my argument with evidence. Granted, it’s only anecdotal evidence, and only my own word to back it up. Still, I’m not just blowing gas, like some in this thread: I’m supporting my opinion with reference to an actual incident that happened on Limbaugh’s show, just recently. Get the idea?
(2) The standards of conduct that Limbaugh holds himself up to, that I cited above, are higher than the standards I’ve seen practiced by certain people on this blog who are criticizing Limbaugh here. People whom I have seen name-call; who are often rude to opponents; and so forth. In other words, they make allegations about Limbaugh’s behavior that would better describe much of their own. I find that interesting.
Very perceptive. Let me be explicit: I think that “Rush is just an entertainer” is one of the stupidest cliches a person can utter about Limbaugh. It’s such an obvious point that it’s essentially meaningless.
Yes, Limbaugh is an entertainer. Conceded 100%. **All good high-school teachers are entertainers**. And, at the end of the day, that’s what Limbaugh really is: a teacher of Conservatism 101. And we should thank him for it.
CP, you got it right about Rush.
I’ve been listening to him for 19 years, not on a daily basis, but at least once a week.
Sure, he is an entertainer – but one with a good message of self reliance. I’ll never forget about 10 years ago when he devoted a week to callers who lost jobs or businesses and picked themselves up by their own boot straps and started over.
Sure, I like the serious highbrow magazines as well. But what’s wrong with a good message being delivered in a light hearted manner? Humor and laughter are healthy and a good way to get a message across.
(even if Limbaugh is a little too pompous for my own taste)
#34 – Pompousness is in the eye of the beholder. Or, as my late uncle used to say, “it ain’t bragging if you can do it well.”
Another thing a lot of people have been missing is the simple fact that liberals are very angry, emotional “victims” who hate to be the butt of jokes. And Rush is effective because he highlights this anger from the left by using humor.
Lower-casers: prove me wrong.
Regards,
Peter H.
As the old saying goes, never buy anything from a salesperson whose only product pitch is to tell you how awful their competitors are.
The Obama Party is attacking Rush because they have nothing, literally nothing, to show the American public why their choice for the Obama Party was the right one. All the Obama Party has done since taking office is push more earmarks, hire more lobbyists, drive more Congressional corruption, promote tax cheats, and demanding higher taxes on businesses and individuals to pay for welfare for illegal immigrants and other groups, endorse the right of the President and the CIA to order torture and extraordinary rendition, and claim that detaining combatants without trial is constitutional — exactly the opposite of what they told the American public they would do.
Since they can’t shut him up, they want Steele, McCain, McConnell, Kristol, Barnes, other Republican conservative dwarves to run from him.
Bingo. And that’s the problem; the Republicans that you mention don’t have the balls to stand up and be disliked. They’re like the gays who supposedly oppose taking kids to the Folsom Street Fair, but don’t want to actually stand on their principles and take the abuse.
Paradoxically, what they’re doing is the exact reverse. If they were interested in getting rid of Rush, they’d be playing up the virtues of the squishy Republicans as an alternative to Rush and trying to get them more public support. Instead, they’re reverting to the Clinton attack-dog mode, which does nothing more than raise Rush’s profile and put out there the fact that Obama Party members think it’s wrong to point out Obama Party hypocrisy with not paying their taxes, corruption, wasteful spending, and whatnot.
heliotrope, I’d go with the second. The Republican Party lost its balls and needs to find them. I don’t think that coddling the mushy, “me too!” center will help.
Have to agree w/you ILC.
Wow, ILC, more of those baseless, nameless personal attacks with true intended targets disguised with a wink and a nod from your special perch on the soapbox –once again, big sighs all around. You got serious bags packed, ILC. You toss those things around more than a gay midget at a post-tournament MuscleMary pose-down orgy up in the Viagra hospitality suite. Just kidding, ILC.
Right, you anecdotal example is, well, pretty meaningless and lots of hot air despite your attestation that it proves something, anything, to somebody, somewhere, somehow. And we can do the anecdotal examples if you wish… How’s this for RushBlow turning a phrase nicely on a caller: “This mindless twit butt boy criticism is not going to drive me out of here.” That was yesterday, March 3rd.
Gee, what was that about your ridiculous, again over-the-top, fawning adoration claim of “In other words: Limbaugh speaks forcefully. Limbaugh sharply answers his opponents’ questions and bad premises. He tells opponents they’re wrong. BUT – He never abuses them. He never calls them names.”
Ummm, take a step off your self-appointed soapbox and comeback down here to reality with the rest of us, ok?
As for tossing around cliches, you gotta love this one (a variation on the projection/critics theme): “The standards of conduct that Limbaugh holds himself up to, that I cited above, are higher than the standards I’ve seen practiced by certain people on this blog who are criticizing Limbaugh here. People whom I have seen name-call; who are often rude to opponents; and so forth. In other words, they make allegations about Limbaugh’s behavior that would better describe much of their own. I find that interesting.”
Really, RushBlow’s tactics are higher than the standards practiced by some here who dare criticize the Great One or the legion of dittoheads? You find that interesting; I find the observation both pompous and gratuitous. But this is your cliche-ridden baggage, thankfully, not mine. Sigh, another case of claiming any criticism is just projection by the critics.
Oh, btw, using the application of your own over-wrought “projection” cliche, RushBlow must be a gay bottom boi given his comment above? Well, isn’t that special news? It may explain why this bastion of moral uprightedness can’t seem to stay married even when they are trophy wives he clearly doesn’t warrant. But that would be a question touching on his personal life… and we don’t want you ringing that famous bell of yours: “More personal attacks!! Just keep ’em coming AE, Michigan Matt, et al”. You seem to ring it so often I’d swear it’s to call over the bellboy to take away all those bags you’re carrying from other threads? Just kidding, ILC.
Of course you’re right. RushBlow never uses harsh words to ostracize and isolate his opponents. He never uses a caller as his whipping boi. He’s a kindly, loving, educator of Conservatism 101. That’s why he has a 62% disapproval rating and his listener base has dropped from a high of 22m in 03 to 13m today, if we can believe the ratings service.
I’d really like to see you drop the bags you’ve been carrying around and stay on topic for once. Hey, do you think Bear Grylls is a woof?
Matt, let me enlighten you to something. The Republican Party did not lose in 2006 and 2008 because they stuck to their principles. They lost because they threw out their principles in favor of sucking up to the people who hate Rush Limbaugh.
Why are you letting Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, and the rest of the Obama Party harpies tell you who you should like? Why are you agreeing with them instead of pointing out that Rahm Emanuel has already been caught lying about his contacts with Rod Blagojevich, and thus demonstrates that the Obama Party is little more than a collection of name-calling, lying thugs? Do you think THAT polls well among the American people?
Michael Steele and the rest of the Republican Party should be hammering home the fact that Rahm Emanuel and James Carville, and the Obama administration for which they work and thoroughly represent, won’t even call out people who cheat the Federal government out of taxes. Don’t react to what they say; punch back. They’re lying scum, and we now have proof of the fact. Hit THEM, not Rush.
ILC,
In the 2008 elections I gave no money, donated no time to candidates and dedicated my efforts to excoriating Republicans for their shameful record of blind spending and readiness to hop on the bandwagon.
Like Rush, I will be delighted if the Republicans will fight back and rediscover their conservative roots. But, it is clear that access to power and treasure is so corrupting that few Republicans can resist the temptation. I still hold to the belief that Republicans are the polar opposite of Democrats who scheme and connive to get their arms up to the shoulder into the power and treasure of politics. There is no way to embarrass a Democrat. At least Republicans have the vestige of a soul and character.
In other matters, I am a dittohead and proud to be one. (Although the term used above is written by those who have no concept of what it means.) The references to Rushblow, are either meant to call him a blowhard or a reference to his past drug addiction. Either way, they are misnomers. A blowhard carries on and on without point. That is not Rush in any manner or form. A recovered (recovering) drug addict is not a scarlet letter. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the political witch hunt the Palm Beach DA unleashed on Rush would readily realize that Rush made some poor choices, but he was no crack head or felon.
Whenever I am treated to a diatribe about Rush, I always discover that the sputtering lips of the Rush hater can not formulate a cogent argument supported by simple truths about why they disdain Limbaugh.
I listen to Rush daily (or just about) while working (self-employed) and I can say confidently that he’s pretty darn gracious to Lib callers- he seems to practice the ‘more flies with honey’ philosophy and genuinly enjoys the debate. He is over the top sometimes and caricaturish but he knows it, he’s in on the joke. And I’ll take his rhetorical flourishes anyday over Obama’s polished lies and class warfare inciting bullshit.
Funny thing- I started listening to Rush while in college in SoCal during the first gulf war. I tuned in for traffic & news and thought he was a giant douchebag. I stayed tuned in to see ‘how the other side thought’ as I was a screaming bed-wetter lefty at the time. It took getting out into the world, working for myself to see that as much as I hated to agree with him, he was right more often than not.
filtered 🙁
#41 Michigan Matt:
I am way out of the loop here, and I prefer to remain that way. I have no reference for the word “boi” or “Bear Grylls is a woof” and I assume that is all some sort of closed community communication.
In #41 above you make this statement:
I scanned the transcript of his program and did not find this remark. Perhaps I missed it.
Rush made references to butt-boys throughout his broadcast on Tuesday. I realize that a “brown nose” may have one meaning in a high school class room and another meaning on a prison row. There may be other meanings elsewhere that are both specific and graphic.
Perhaps you would care to explain what Rush is “clearly” saying when he speaks of “mindless twit butt boy criticism.” If Rush was using “code” here, it clearly went over my head. Are you winding up to charge Rush with some violation of the hate speech sub-codes?
I will agree that “mindless twit” is overkill. I doubt that a twit can be mindless and still a twit. It is not so much an oxymoron as it is two levels of comparison that can not be maximized simultaneously. So, I would image that “butt-boy” is in for some type of tedious expository overkill. Come to think of it, I bet that a “butt-boy” person of the day award would make for clever discussion. Perhaps we should first adopt the “butt-person” nomenclature and avoid the charges of sexism entirely.
Says who? Carville’s poll of liberals?
Surely you can provide those, right?
ROFL 🙂
English translation: I hit a nerve. But hey, MM, at least you directed your blowback at the observation, not the speaker… that time.
Now that, I didn’t claim. Limbaugh certainly abuses public figures that he doesn’t like. But I claimed (or meant to) that Limbaugh is civil to his callers – his opponents in discussion. And that you fairly often aren’t. You’ve yet to prove me wrong on either count.
heliotrope – I googled for the butt-boy comment. Limbaugh quotes it himself:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030309/content/01125100.guest.html
The reference seems to be to journalists who are subservient to our Dear Leader. I don’t believe Limbaugh was abusing a guest or caller, liberal or otherwise.
helio: “I scanned the transcript of his program and did not find this remark. Perhaps I missed it.” Yes, I think you did. The point & quote made was in rebuttal to ILC’s claim that RushBlow “never” calls people names, is never mean-spirited… it’s just robust debate and colorful language. Right. Just like good ol’ Dr Laura used to do.
And as a gay, I take exception to his use of the phrase “butt boy” to demean opponents in some derogatory fashion… there’s always been a touch of homo-bashing in Rush’s more “colorful and robust” name-calling. I’d think even conservative gays would take exception to that at some point; I guess not, eh?
NDXXX, we can endlessly debate whether or not the GOP stuck to its principles in 06 and 08 and that’s why they lost the election (meaning the WH –or do you mean Senate, House and other seats?)… the truth is that it the Party lost the 08 WH race because, as Karl Rove rightly points out, some 4.1m soc-cons stayed home in a disloyal snit and pout… mostly because McCain wasn’t perceived as soc-con enough for them… and, by doing so, helped contribute to Obama’s new reign and the ascendancy of the Left in America… when, if we listened to Rush, the Left was in tattered ruin because AirAmerica couldn’t maintain listenership on AM radio or something like that.
You can say the 06 and 08 races were lost because the GOP didn’t stick to its principles… except there’s that problem with McCain ceaselessly talking about ending earmarks and fiscal restraint and tax cuts and a strong natl defense and supporting the troops and, well, you get it; he did remain true to some of those core GOP principles. Did he want to trash illegals seeking a better life for their families? No. Did he think English Only and preventing Flag Desecration were jobs #1? No. Did he want to use gay marriage as a wedge issue? No.
I’d say the 98-04 corruption of GOP soc-cons in Congress ruined the Party’s brand with average, unaligned voters and they moved toward the Left. I’d say countless legislative efforts by the Congressional soc-cons took the image of the Party astray from its bedrock core principles into the land of culture war for the sake of warring with the Left. Corruption was part of it. Better media mgt by the Dems’ agenda from 02-06 was a part of it. Smarter candidates hiding their true policy preferences was part of it for the Dems. And there was a lot more, of course.
Look, I don’t need to argue that Rush is a corrosive, divisive, incendiary figure for the GOP –who he often refers to as “our Party” during his broadcasts. For me, he is. For more than 60% of independents he’s viewed as a negative (or the now vogue polling term “cold”). For Dems he’s off the charts negative. I don’t care about the latter group; it’s those independents I’m concerned about and how the GOP moves forward to return to being a majority Party. And how we win back the Hispanic vote that Bush 41-43 and Jeb worked so hard to curry favor.
TCG, try using your web search engine. There’s a lot of polling data on Rush’s negatives; look at three like Gallup and Rasmussen and a couple of the conventional Dem pollsters and you can find the range… 62% is fair figure. As for his listenership, check out Arbitron or, if you aren’t so inclined, try his Wiki entry for easier reference.
ILC, I see you’re up to your usual “debate” games again… sigh. What a pity. Let’s see, we’ll take this to a point where you debate a minor point in the hope that your constant chatter will divert attention away from the main point: Rush is all light, glory and fairness just kindly instructing those wayward liberal souls.
No whipping boi gamesmanship. No snide, snarking characterizations. Just a little robust and colorful and forceful rhetoric meant to shock the caller and gain a conversion.
Nawh, I don’t think so homey. But it’s good to see your spots haven’t changed and those bags are right alongside you still. Bloody heavy load, that.
ILC offers: “And that you fairly often aren’t. You’ve yet to prove me wrong on either count.”
I tolerate you, don’t I? That’s yeoman work in any enterprise, ILC.
Not at all 🙂
Ah… now we enter the misrepresentation / confusion phase (not sure which) of dealing with MM. I’ll construct a handy review chart. Here’s what I said:
Emphasis added for clarity. MM said:
Emphasis added for clarity. I then googled the ‘butt-boy’ comment and found that, no, it doesn’t appear to have been addressed to any Limbaugh caller. From Limbaugh’s web site:
Emphasis added for clarity.
I just said “now we enter the misrepresentation / confusion phase (not sure which) of dealing with MM”. I take it back. It can’t be confusion. It must be outright misrepresentation.
Thanks, ILC, for putting the “butt-boy” claim in #41 in context. I didn’t find it in the transcript, but it is clearly the closing remark in Limbaugh’s summary on his site.
Please don’t tell me more than I have any need to know, but isn’t a “butt-boy” a subservient minion who is …. a brown nose …. or something more graphic?
I have listened to Rush since he was in Sacramento. What I can not listen to as he broadcasts I catch on my Ipod which is automatically updated by 6 pm each week night. I can also call up all of this broadcasts on the 24/7 site and I subscribe to his transcripts. I hear so many loopy claims about his lies, venal pejoratives, and inner chamber black helicopter conspiracies that I have made a hobby of testing other people’s sanity by the claims they make about the man.
Obviously, Rush does not validate any of the principles held by Michigan Matt. But he so threatens such people that they will make absolute asses of themselves trying to dismiss Rush. In the vein of “the lady doth protest too much” I can not help but marvel at how ballistic Rush haters will go in their rejection of all things Limbaugh. No matter who you are and what your reputation and regard, if you agree with Rush, they see you as a (Rush’s coinage) a mind-numbed robot.
P.S. I have heard *Rush* claim, with self-mockery-that-isn’t-quite, that he’s all light, glory and fairness just kindly instructing wayward liberal souls. That’s part of what I mean, when I say I find him pompous or a little over-the-top.
Yes. Either, or both. Either a brown-noser, or a kind of willing sex slave… the interpretation is up to the listener.
I have to jump in here, being a Rush listener since after Election Day 1992, when I thought the world was being thrown into the crapper (little did I know it would seem like paradise compared to 2008):
I myself don’t have a problem with Rush calling the subservient Drive-By Media (which I like to refer to as the “propaganda wing of the DNC”) as butt-boys. The syncophantic ramblings of Chris “Tingle-Up-My-Leg” Matthews and Jack “I-Want-to-Bang-Michelle-Obama” Cafferty provide enough justification for the moniker.
Also, I am not as thin-skinned as some of our commenters here (including one in particular for whom I had a measure of respect up until recently) who decry the use of the term “butt-boy” as being sexually insensitive. Being a Texan and a Southerner, I call ’em like I see ’em, and if the brown-nose fits on the MSM, they should dang well wear it.
I had to get that off my chest. Thanks for your attention.
Regards,
Peter H.
ILC, predictably begins the nonsense of stating and restating and modifying and clarifying and endlessly badgering until life no longer is in evidence on the planet Earth with this: “Ah… now we enter the misrepresentation / confusion phase (not sure which) of dealing with MM. I’ll construct a handy review chart. Here’s what I said: (blah, blah, blah)”
Let’s see, I called that move here: “ILC, I see you’re up to your usual “debate†games again… sigh. What a pity. Let’s see, we’ll take this to a point where you debate a minor point in the hope that your constant chatter will divert attention away…”
Good job; attention diverted.
Rush is just trying to help liberal callers come to his version of conservative enlightenment. Yep, that’s all it is.
Your spots are in perfect position once again. Baggage in tow. You’re a superstar.
helio deduces “Obviously, Rush does not validate any of the principles held by Michigan Matt.”
Wrong-o, helio. I share many opinions with Rush on items like bloated federal budgets, the benefits of capitalist democracies over any other form of govt, earmarks, the victimization industry of the farLeft, support of our troops and their mission, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the important role of religion in moderating base impulses in our society, the importance of non-profit charities vs govt handout programs, the value of smaller, less invasive govt, local decision making and lots of others.
Thanks for the opportunity to correct your overstatement.
Apologies, Michigan Matt. I should never have allowed “any” to have gone unchecked when I meant “many.” I intended to type: Rush does not validate many of the principles held by Michigan Matt.
Even with that lame correction, I suppose I should not assume beyond “some” of the principles of Michigan Matt.
Now I know you’re full of shit. Climb down from your cross and get over yourself.
You know, MM,
You’d have a lot of credibility when taking umbrage at ‘butt boy’ if you didn’t consistantly use the name Rushblow.
Here you go, M&M:
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/10/talkers-magazine-top-talk-radio.html
You’ll forgive me for not getting excited over an old Rasmussen poll which ranks Katie Couric higher in popularity.
I call bullsh*t. Here’s the bottom line, MM:
1) I said Rush doesn’t abuse his callers. Repeatedly. Pointedly. And later, when challenged, documented that.
2) You know perfectly well that I had said Rush doesn’t abuse his callers. Know how I know you know? Because, in citing the ‘butt-boy’ comment, *****you***** specifically tied it to “RushBlow turning a phrase nicely on a **caller**”. [emphasis added]
3) Now, in typical MM fashion, *****you***** want obfuscate and pretend I said something else, the issue is something else, blah blah blah blah blah.
And you’re doing a piss-poor job of it! LOL 🙂 Good night.
and, by doing so, helped contribute to Obama’s new reign and the ascendancy of the Left in America
Um, no. I don’t buy “the Republicans are worse” rationalization from leftist gays about voting for Obama Party members, so why would I buy “the Democrats are worse” rationalization from McCain and the Obama Lite folks?
Furthermore, Matt, you and the Obama Lite folks tried throwing the social conservatives and Rush under the bus in 2008. How many “independent” and Obama Party votes did it get you? NONE. How many votes did it cost you? 4 MILLION. What a surprise; when given the choice between Obama Party members and Obama Lite GOP members, Obama Party voters and “independents” went with the Obama Party, every time. And instead of acknowledging that your strategy of trying to be more Obama than the Obama Party is doesn’t work, you blame “social conservatives”.
Isn’t this whole thing, MM, all about the fact that you can’t stand Limbaugh’s characterization of the wet noodle spined “moderates”?
NDXXX, with all due respect, I said we could endlessly debate the point because I know, despite what Michele Malkin might contend, soc-cons are unwilling to accept any part of the blame for electing Obama by playing the pouting, snitty game of “take-my-marbles-and-run on Election Day”.
I just don’t get your statement of “And instead of acknowledging that your strategy of trying to be more Obama than the Obama Party is doesn’t work, you blame “social conservativesâ€.” We tried to be more like Obama than Obama?? WTF is that? Lunacy on your part.
The simple truth is that soc-cons and RushBlow (ps, Livewire, the “blow” on RushBlow is about his hot air, not his capacity to fellate) hyped a series of issues that turned independent voters away from the GOP, turned even behaviorial-GOP voters away from the GOP, energized large segments of hardcore anti-GOP voters and motivated the opposition to get out and expand their own voting bases in 08 and 06. But it didn’t start in 08 or 06; the roots of the rotten tree go back to 98 and 00 and 02 and 04.
And for that, the soc-cons want RushBlow to be knighted, glorified, defended against the barbarians at the gate and rally ’round him like he was Old Glory on the battlefield. Sorry, he’s a radio show entertainer who created an environment of intolerance and corrosion and division that helped elect Obama. And he sure as Hell isn’t the voice or leader of the GOP –or God help us all ’cause we will be the perpetual minority party of angry, embittered white men pissing in their boots.
You say the McCain candidacy didn’t attract a single independent voter? Wrong. McCain took 45% of the independent vote but only 40% of the moderate vote… less of the Hispanic vote, far less of the Asian vote, tied the male vote with Obama but lost the female vote.
On your query of how many Obama voters did McCain get? About 11% or just slightly less than Obama got of GOP voters… my guess is those 11% of Obama voters for McCain were mostly PUMAs and some old ScoopJacksonHawks. However, if you add to Obama’s GOP share the portion of soc-cons who voted by default for Obama by staying home, then Obama got something closer to 15-16% of the GOP “vote”.
Nancy Regan said it correctly: “John McCain is a conservative”. Hell, Ronald Reagan could have come back from the crypt and said that and it wouldn’t have had an impact on soc-cons. Because when you’ve been pissing in your boots for months, you’re a bitter little angry white guy with a streak for revenge that would make “Deliverance” look tame.
McCain spoke singularly about getting Congress under control, ending earmarks, reforming the corrosive partisan culture in DC, bringing fiscal restraint to the budget, cutting taxes, keeping the fed cts safe for the strict constructionists who won’t legislate from the bench, et cetera. He even went as far as to admit at CPAC in Feb 08 that he got the earlier soc-cons message about immigration reform loud and clear –no reform until the border is secure and he said he’d adopt that premise and make it happen.
It didn’t matter to soc-cons. If you believe Karl Rove’s and Michael Barone’s independent analyses, the soc-cons stayed home on Election Day and forfeited the federal govt to the farLeft. Disgruntled and disloyal and boots full of piss.
For that, they ought to frickin’ put themselves under the bus. It’s why I don’t get concerned when the WH, CNN, Democrat politicos and others take aim at RushBlow. And I smile at RushBlow’s sweet manipulation of his adoring fan base without their apparent knowledge… time to rally around the flag and defend his honor? I don’t think so.
Michael Steele gets demerit points for not apologizing strongly enough and making his point clear: Rush is not the GOP, although he might be the loudest voice for social conservatives –and that would be THEIR problem.
Spam filter release? Please.
TGC asks “Isn’t this whole thing, MM, all about the fact that you can’t stand Limbaugh’s characterization of the wet noodle spined “moderatesâ€?”
Nope, in fact I’ve not had the pleasure of hearing RushBlow use that line. I know he detests moderate GOPers for not being true conservatives in his acerbic mold and he wants the GOP brand to be only-conservative, farRight 24×7 and push anyone else outside the tent.
But, no, my dislike of RushBlow comes from the way he conducts business, for the impact that his show has on the coarsening of public discourse and the political harm he brings the GOP, for his scattered overt homophobic remarks and his cunning manipulation of the listeners to advance his own ego and self-interest.
I’m sorry I didn’t articulate my point clearer.
MM, you’re throwing insults around, then complaining when someone uses an insult that you take personal umbrage to. It underminds your arguement.
(Personally, I thought you were confusing Rush’s battle with Oxycotin with President Obama’s battle with Cocaine, not all of us thing about sex)
Live, I didn’t know a person could blow Oxycontin. Wow, the things I learn in conservative blogs.
As for this “MM, you’re throwing insults around, then complaining when someone uses an insult that you take personal umbrage to. It underminds your arguement.”
I’m not complaining about “someone” using a derogatory term here… I was speaking about RushBlow (hot air, remember?) increasingly using homophobic slurs like butt boy to sissify and demonize his opponents. And his seemingly loyal conservative gay dittoheads who see nothing wrong with that. “Someone”? RushBlow’s using that kind of language on a natl broadcast going into, potentially, 13+m cars with kids riding alongside parents. “Mom, what’s a butt boy”?
Just like I took exception to Michael Phelps when he was outed for smoking a bong pipe and caused parents across the land to explain to their kids why a world-class athlete would use a bong pipe and what it is used for… sorry, it’s a little more than just “someone”.
McCain spoke singularly about getting Congress under control, ending earmarks, reforming the corrosive partisan culture in DC, bringing fiscal restraint to the budget, cutting taxes, keeping the fed cts safe for the strict constructionists who won’t legislate from the bench, et cetera.
Which is exactly the same thing Obama was claiming HE would do.
Nobody on the conservative side believed Obama, and they weren’t about to believe McCain, who experience had taught them was more than willing to throw Republicans under the bus to get media attention for himself and his amnesty/campaign finance/Gang of 14 activities.
Social conservatives would rather deal with Obama than support Obama Lite. It’s called not rewarding bad behavior by RINOs.
Man, can MM lay it on thick. Thick! Such marvelous spin. Cracks me up.
ILC, tell us what it is about your penchant for needing to unpack soooo much personal baggage and spite and lay it on each and every doorstep?
If you and your echo-chamber pals can rail, vent and badger the gayLeft with faux-outrage over Folsom St or Dorr Alley antics and not find exception to RushBlow’s use of the above language to sissify his opponents and do the ol’ locker room –hey, they ain’t one of us normal guys line– I have to think you’re more hot air than the Great One, RushBlow.
I’m glad I crack you up, ILC. But there’s nothing thick or spinning about taking exception to RushBlow’s language used on air where kids can hear it… anymore than the farRight whackjobs getting incensed over some rap lyrics.
Oh, I forget. When it’s one of your team (yeah, I know you’ve contended you don’t like RushBlow… right, get that swamp land parcel for sale, too) it’s just colorful language. When it’s the opposition, damn the double standard, condemnation at full speed Capitain-o.
Take a break and leave the ol’ baggage full of spite from other threads on someone else’s doorstep next time, ok? It’s tedious without the beenficial use of any enlightenment.
Back on topic for a second before ILC drags out another round of personal baggage unpacking exercises… right, I know… way too hopeful, that.
NDT, here’s the core of the problem with your political suicide approach: “Social conservatives would rather deal with Obama than support Obama Lite. It’s called not rewarding bad behavior by RINOs.”
And, there in lays the dilemma for all those disloyal soc-cons, NDXXX. They can take the Party toward political suicide and there’s no consequence for their action. They can take the Party to the extreme outer edge of silly symbolic issues (English Only, ie) and alienate large segments of the voters the Party needs to win elections. They can, as you so aptly note, drive out of the tent those who aren’t pure enuff, true enuff and the soc-cons don’t have to suffer any consequence.
Crap to all that nonsense; the Party had all that extreme politics under TommieDelay and we didn’t profit from it. A Dem majority in the House heading into a census period? An increasing Dem majority in the Senate if the soc-con purists get to toss Specter and others out? The election of the most liberal president in the modern era?
You know what, the only RINO’s out there are the disloyal soc-cons who couldn’t contain their spiteful self-interest for a second and pull the lever for McCain.
At the end of the day, elections are about winning. They’re are NOT about making angry white guys full of piss in their boots “feel good” about their embitterment and validating their pettiness toward others. It isn’t about those guys isolating an entire Party from securing political office. It isn’t about truth tests, limtus tests, purity tests on issues and debating stupid items like whether or not the Gold Standard should be brought back or militia units should have automatic weapons.
It’s about winning elections and when, as is the case with the 2008 election, a segment of the Party’s voting coalition acts in a disloyal, adverse, untoward fashion –with RushBlow at the front of the line egging on many of those soc-cons with his brand of ego-strumpet chest pounding and bitching– the answer isn’t to embrace those disloyal dittoheads tighter… the answer is to put them under bus and let the wheels do what evolution failed to do… end it for them and help us all out.
The Party needs to move away from the emotional-reassuring bitching that people like RushBlow and others offer on social conservative issues… and return to bedrock GOP issues like fiscal restraint, local decisions, less govt, smaller govt, strong natl defense and military, strict constructionist judges, etc.
That doesn’t mean the Party embraces Sodom and Gomorrah on social issues… but allowing some GOPers to support Choice without burning them at the stake? Yeah. Allowing some GOPers to support federal funding of stem cell research and new lines without gouging out their eyes and making them wear sack cloths? Yeah. Allowing some GOPers to even say that extending federal benefits to gay couples is ok? Yeah.
I don’t have the luxury of saying at the end of the day “Well, we lost but in our loss we proven we were right on the issues.”
Screw that. Losing is not what political parties are about. Reagan knew that –it’s why he structured a message that would reach out to coalitions the GOP didn’t have access to… like blue-collar, anti-tax Democrats. And he would be ashamed of so-called social conservatives today who speak ill so often, so much of fellow GOPers… if those soc-cons are even inside the Party and not just bitching from the sidelines.